At the time the interference was declared, the Board was unaware that Kassel’s patent had
expired, and thus the interference was improvidently declared.
B. Discussion
An interference shall not be declared between an expired patent and a pending
application. 35 U.S.C. § 135(a). Since the Kassel patent had expired as of the date the
interference was declared, the Board lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the interference.
Accordingly, the interference is terminated without judgment.
C. Order
Upon consideration of the record, it is
ORDERED that the interference is TERMINATED.
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this ORDER TERMINATING
INTERFERENCE shall be placed and given a paper number in the file of Kassel, U.S. Patent
6,066,848 and Hindsgaul, U.S. Patent Application 10/242,114.
/ss/ Richard E. Schafer )
RICHARD E. SCHAFER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
/ss/ Sally G. Lane )BOARD OF PATENT
SALLY G. LANE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
/ss/ Sally C. Medley )
SALLY C. MEDLEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007